Vattel is giving his opinion which certainly has a great deal of authority for the Founders. However, it still is only that and is not part of the Constitution. And the way he gives his opinion seems to suggest that there are other legitimate views.
Given that Blacks’s does not give a definition of “native born” just “native” leads me to the conclusion that the concept “native born” is not different, in point of law, from natural born as has been applied in US law.
This is even worse than expected for being in a murky realm of the law. I just checked Black’s definition of “citizen” under American law and did not find the term “native-born” or “natural-born”. Only the terms “naturalized” or “born” which also substantiates my conclusion that there is no significant difference between “born in” and “natural-born”. Certainly as applies to the qualifications for the presidency it has never been before a court.
There is also no doubt that the determination of a child’s citizenship through the father has no validity under today’s law.
This is a fascitating line of conversation from many perspectives and shows a great deal of light on social relations among other issues.
As you mentioned, Vattel states his opinions and well founded reasoning in ‘The Law of Nations’, which I believe ties together much of British Common Law, common sense, and sound reasoning. Even though there may have been other legitimate views, they were not put forth in one authoritative tome such as his (at least not that of which I am aware) and thus, IMO, not as likely to have been widely relied upon by the Founding Fathers and legal scholars of that time.
I believe, sir, that if we were opposing counsel in a pertinent case on this subject, we would have a grand ol’ time. It would be interesting to see how the judge would rule. (Of course I would first have to get a law degree and pass the Bar, LOL.)